Canonization of the Biblical Text

---

Canonization of the Biblical Text

Canonization

The term canon in the context of the Biblical writings, the whole of the Scriptural record as we now have it, is used to denote the body of the text that has been received or accepted as of Devine origin and authority, in contrast to those ancient writings which are regarded as solely the thoughts or expressions of mankind. The term itself is of both Semitic and Greek origin. The Semitic root word meant “reed.” The Greek word came to mean “stave of a shield,” “a weaver’s rod,” or “a ruler for drawing or measuring.” Metaphorically speaking then, canon implies a rule, standard or model. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (298 – 373 A.D.), is generally credited with the first use of the term canon, in the sense of “those books received as Scripture.”

Of the differing criteria applied to arrive at the Scriptural Canon, the two primary ones are Divine origin and binding authority. In overviewing the history of canonization the principal approach has been to distinguish between those writings which exhibit evidence of Devine inspiration, and those which do not. More on this and related criteria will be discussed below.

If Divine inspiration is the principal criteria for Scriptural canonicity, the process of determining what is canon versus what is not, then conforms with the prior stated belief that it is by God’s sovereign superintendence of His Written Word that we have the Scriptural record today that He alone has preserved and given us. This process then is not simply historically based, but represents the consequence of His Divine providence. Accordingly, it is God Who has established the Scriptural Canon, and man’s duty is to acknowledge what he has been given and thus treat it as having the authority it represents.

The canonized Biblical record is most often approached from one of two perspectives, within some cases an appended sub-set or fallback approach. These two approaches are as follows:

1. Either one approaches the Bible from the perspective that he or she is the judge of truth, and therefore comes to the Scriptures from a presupposition of testing them as to whether they contain truth or fallacy; or

2. One believes that God is Who he says He is – the Revealer of truth – and comes to the Scriptures to discover what is indeed true.

In the first instance the skeptic believes that he or she is fully capable of determining what is true, based on his or her paradigm (which, as stated from the outset of this book, differs for every individual), and thus is able alone to judge the veracity of the Bible. In the second instance the seeker of truth – using discretion – is willing to consider that absent God’s gracious act of revealing the truth, he or she will likely never grasp it. And it is this latter individual who recognizes that a faith/trust in God and His commissioned Word becomes a pre-requisite for understanding the Bible as God intended it to be understood.

In the case of some skeptics, there exists a semblance of wanting to know and understand God. However, often upon discovery of seeming contradictions in the Biblical text, for example, he or she will tend to defer to another man for answers, without having the background or discretionary equipping to determine if the individual chosen for guidance is himself Biblically grounded. The typical fallback under these circumstances is to seek out one in a religiously ordained position of leadership, such as a pastor or rabbi. Sadly, this often is a wrong choice, for reasons already expressed as being the impetus for the writing of this book. Religious leaders are trained and indoctrinated in a religious system of one sort or another, and therefore tend to parrot the training they have received – being a mixture (syncretism) of God’s Written Word and man’s errant doctrines and theologies.

A seeker of truth, one who is allowing the Holy Spirit to guide his or her life, recognizes that from a presupposition of faith, reason, logic, and discretion represent important factors in understanding the Scriptural record we have been given. Sadly, within the confines of man’s numerous religious systems many have come to know (i.e., have gained familiarity with) the Bible. However, of those who have read the Bible and been taught under religious mantra, only a small percentage actually understand the Biblical record as God intended for it to be understood and lived out. There exists a huge difference between knowing God’s Written Word and understanding it. This difference is born out through mere intellectual assent in the first instance, and life application and implementation in the second.

The truth is that God does not traffic in religion and religious activities, but rather moves and operates through personal relationships – relationships established through covenant commitments as outlined in His Written Word, the Bible.

Clearly, the above two approaches to the Biblical Canon will render very different results. The skeptic who comes to the Bible to critique it, to dispute it, or to determine if it is believable, will not seek to resolve what appears as confusing or conflicting statements or accounts. And, will most often assign the blame for the confusion to the text itself, never realizing it may be his or her own limited ability and background – lack of equipping – that is underlying the confusion. Thus, in that person’s mind the Bible will be relegated to a status of non-importance and, often along with it, God Himself.

For the seeker of truth, reason, logic, and discretion become one’s tools of the faith, not the foundation for it. If reason and logic do not reveal the answer to questions raised by the Biblical text, faith nevertheless survives as the stalwart foundation and witness to the veracity of the Scriptures. What appears to render no answer today, points one to the need for further research, study and equipping. The Biblical Canon as we have it today is accepted as the Word of God revealed to mankind. Embedded in its text are the fullness and mysteries of the Creator God, but understandable only in His context – the context in which they were commissioned and subsequently written. Therefore, we must seek to study and discern them in that same context: linguistically, historically, culturally, and literarily. And we must expect that at times and in places they will challenge our abilities to fully seize the enormity of their revelation. This alone, however, should not preclude our attempts to understand the text, nor to explain how they are non- contradictory.

Quoting once again from How We Got Our Bible[1] :

“…Such an enterprise does not differ from the scientist who studies the physical world and attempts

to explain its inner workings. But the believing scientist recognizes the hand of the Creator in the

physical universe, and therefore admits to the unexplainable when his observations and experiments

do not yield a rational explanation. He does not presume, because he does not have an answer to the

“how” of the phenomenon he observes, that the physical world does not exist, or that it is unworthy of

his study. Rather, he admits his own limitations, and continues to seek answers, all the while admitting

the mystery that he beholds. The same is true when we approach the Scriptures to seek their message.

When we can offer no explanation for the apparent conflict the Scriptures present, we admit that we

have come to the end of ourselves, while at the same time affirming the eternal truth of the Bible.”

The method then by which God superintended the writing of the text of the Bible is known as inspiration, having been channeled through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Once again, this is evidenced in the text of 2 Peter 1: 20, for example, as follows (see also 2 Tim. 3:16-17):

“;knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private origin, for prophecy never

came by the will man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Thus, determination of the true nature and message of the Biblical record has been achieved through the “inspiration” of God Himself. The message in full is embedded in the text itself. It was not that men wrote the Scriptures and then God breathed into them inspiration; rather, the Scriptural record, every word as originally penned, was God-breathed in that they originated with God, and the human authors simply recorded what God wanted them to record.

Canonization Background and Process

Having established the premise for not only transmission of the ancient manuscripts forward in time, but also for determination of which of those writings came to be incorporated into the Biblical Canon, we now can address the history and criteria for canonicity of Scripture. And the canonicity of Scripture is a matter of determined authority; that is, God’s authority ultimately, using His Written Word as the framework for determining that authority. Even though we can trace the impetus and formation of Scripture, its transmission forward, its translation, and its providentially inspired status, there still remains the need to determine which of all the extant sources of ancient writings are to be rendered as authoritative, and thus constitute God’s Written Word of truth – His Scriptures. When we understand and can affirm the historical process of canonicity, and that it has benefited from the custodianship of God’s providential oversight, then we are in a position to acknowledge the authority of the Scriptural content, and thus be positioned to confidently adopt it as the pillar for guiding our lives.

First, we will begin our overview of the history of canonization by outlining the impetus for canonization, the process of it, and the criteria used to establish it. Of necessity, we must distinguish in places the differing times and circumstances surrounding canonization of the Scriptures and the Apostolic Scriptures. Writings ultimately incorporated into these two sub-sets of the Biblical Canon were, of course, initially generated many centuries apart. But the final acceptance of the books for canonization in both sub-sets occurred in relatively close proximity, as we shall see.

As long as the living voices of the prophets, and later apostles of Yeshua, were to be heard, there existed no perceived need for a canon of Scripture. Under the inspiration of God and teachings of Yeshua and His disciples, these believers knew what was inspired. However, with the passing of these Biblical-historical characters, increasing awareness grew of the need to assemble and preserve the inspired writings from corruption and eventual loss.

The driving forces behind official canonization formally began early in the First Century, A.D. Probably the two most prominent of these forces were the increasing threat, and growing volume, of false writings known as pseudepigrapha.[2] The First Century body of believers, known as the Way[3], was also seriously threatened by the false teachings of Gnosticism. We see the height of activity of this religious sect during the time of Yeshua, and later during the Apostle Paul’s travels, particularly in Colosse (see Col. 2:20-23). Later, in A.D. 303, an Edict from Roman Emperor Diocletian[4] declared that all Christian books must be destroyed. This forced the growing body of believers to solidify which writings were to be of real value, and which could be cast into the fire.

The criteria for canonization, first simply through long-standing acceptance of extant ancient writings, and later developed through the work of various early Church councils, were designed to acknowledge and adhere to God’s superintendence of the texts, and to propagate that same oversight into the canons themselves. Thus, even though the canonization process itself was done by men, it was through men of God who earnestly desired that God’s ‘accepted’ Word would be pleasing to Him, and preserved for all of humanity for all time. The criteria developed over time were applied to separate writings (later to be known as books), and comprised of the following tests:

1. Authorship - The work had to be written by a prophet, apostle or disciple, or close associate thereof.

2. Inspiration - The work had to exhibit clear signs of God-breathed inspiration, and contain a spiritual character indicative of a leading of the Holy Spirit.

3. Nature of Writing - The work had to contain a message that was in agreement with divine revelation of prior accepted works, and reflect the character and nature of Messiah.

4. Universality - The work had to already have gained an accepted and recognized status of divine authority, being read and practiced within the greater corpus of the believing community.

The above criteria are general statements reflecting a summary statement of the tests applied, and will vary somewhat depending on the historical source consulted. Keep in mind that canonization of the Scriptures (Old Testament, so-called) was gradual, being composed of writings spread over many centuries. Canonization of the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament, so-called) was gradually added to that of the Scriptures, but it was some time after their original writing.

Canonicity of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures)

History is somewhat vague on just when the combined three-part configuration of the Tanakh was considered as canon. As previously mentioned, the term “Tanakh” is actually a vowelized acronym for the Torah (i.e., the first five books), the Neviim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (writings). We see by the First Century, A.D., that the Hebrew Scriptures were often referred to as “the Torah and the Prophets,” or the “Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” See e.g., Mat. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40; Luke 16:1; John 1:45; Acts 13:15, 24:14, 28:23; Rom. 3:21; or Luke 24:44. The frequency of these cited designations in the Apostolic Scriptures would seem to indicate a known, accepted standard or canon. Usage is found in the early Apocryphal work of The Wisdom of Ben Sira, wherein the above tripartite designations were used as early as 132 B.C. Throughout the Tanakh there are indications that the people of Israel considered the Torah as authoritative canon (e.g., see Josh. 1:8, 8:35; 1 King. 10:25; 2 King. 22-23 ). The first explicit reference to a collection of books outside of the Torah is found in Dan. 9:2, where Daniel cites the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the 70 year exile of the southern kingdom of Judah. Thus, in Daniel’s time, during the Babylonian exile of 586 – 516 B.C., there apparently was a collection of books which included an extant version of the Book of Jeremiah that was considered as authoritative. In the post-exilic period the Latter Prophets (a.k.a. minor Prophets in Christendom) were being gathered together and evaluated with respect to the Former (a.k.a. major Prophets) Prophets. This process is believed to have extended to as late somewhere between the 2nd Century B.C. and the First Century A.D. It should be remembered that even though a given writing may have been generally accepted, there were some who still disputed it for various reasons. This historical fact was replicated in the case of the Apostolic Scriptures as well.

As a general statement, most scholars consider a date of around 150 B.C. for the final formation of the Hebrew Canon; a small minority however would place it earlier, even as early as about 300 B.C. For the overriding substance of the canon, however, its state as it existed a century and a half after Ezra and Nehemiah (458 – 420 B.C.) remained largely unaffected by the later controversies over dating. Of interest also is the belief by a minority of scholars that the latter content of the Tanakh, the Ketuvim, or Writings, was still “open” into the First Century, A.D. This is based on the opinion that it was not until the end of the First Century that a final determination of the Writings had been made at the Council of Yavneh.[5]

After surviving the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai requested permission of the Romans to reestablish his school at Yevneh. He did so after receiving permission, and in the decade after the Temple’s destruction the school grew in importance, being accepted on par with academies that previously only those in Jerusalem held. During his tenure ben Zakkai was very influential in the Jewish world, and also became instrumental in discrediting considerable of the apocalyptic literature circulating at his time. Upon his passing, Gamliel II succeeded ben Zakkzi, leading the Yavneh Academy from 80 – 117, A.D. Gamliel found favor with the Romans, and was involved in resolving some of the conflicts between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. While the Academy at Yavneh in many aspects functioned to replace many of the academies and the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, it nevertheless operated as a yeshiva and beit din, not in the capacity of a synod or council.

Considerable has been written on the Academy at Yavneh, which will be left to the reader to explore as desired. However, the overriding consensus seems to be that there exists little indication that any new canonical decisions were forthcoming from Yavneh. While it is true that many learned men were associated with the Academy at Yavneh, including Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Jose the Galilean, and Rabbi Ishmael, the overwhelming historical evidence points to an early part of the Tannaitic period (70 – 200 A.D.), at the latest, for solidification of the extent of the Hebrew Canon or, as herein designated, the Scriptures.

With the exception of the first Five Books of Moses – the Torah – Rabbinic literature records many disputes and debates over which of the ancient writings should be included in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, or balance of the Tanakh.

The Sages considered books acceptable to be received as canon to have been written during the prophetic period. It was reasoned that during this time the Spirit of God was active in revealing His Divine Word to the prophetic writers. The Sages considered the work of the Holy Spirit’s revelation to have ended around 400 B.C., or at the time of the passing of the latter prophets such as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Accordingly, all writings post-dating this time were regarded as non-authoritative for canonization. Thus, principle among the books subject to early dispute included Esther, Ruth, and Song of Songs.

By the Second Century, B.C., the Rabbis taught an early list of Canonical Books to be:

Prophets (Nevi’im): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve (or so-called minor prophets of today).

Writings (Ketuvim): Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Scroll of Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles.

Combined with the Torah (5 books), the Prophets (8 books) and the Writings (11 books) summed to a total of 24 books, the enumeration we see today in the accepted Hebrew Canon. In this enumeration the Books of Samuel and Kings were each treated as one book, as was the Twelve. In the enumeration of the Writings, Ezra was comprised of both Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles was reckoned as one book (instead of the two we see today). Thus, the re-enumeration we see today in most modern English Bible versions (which has been reckoned both as to order and book division, is patterned after the Septuagint, or Lxx, discussed below) equates to a total of 39 books; or, Torah (5), Prophets (21), and Writings (13).

In that approximate 200 year period between 400 B.C. and 200 B.C., debates over certain books were finally resolved, but during the interim included certain book re-groupings and at one point even a 22 book enumeration. Five books under consideration that continued to be debated during this period included Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther. In overview, Ezekiel was disputed because the prophecy seemed to some to contradict Torah. Proverbs seemed to some to contain internal contradictions. Ecclesiastes seemed to be self-contradictory and to laud a non-pious life. The Song of Songs, though believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, it was felt could be used in an unholy manner. The Book of Esther, from the viewpoint of a minority, was questioned on the grounds that it did not contain the Divine Name, appeared to be secular in content, promoted a yearly festival not found in the Torah, and in the account Esther marries a pagan king. In the end, however, these final five books were accorded inspirational character and affirmed by the majority as suitable for canonization.

Several other sources outside of the accepted Hebrew Canon existed as contenders for canonical material. One of these was the canon of the Qumran Community, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The Essenes of Qumran were a highly sectarian group, and their canon reflected this, principally through evidence of a large amount of what came to be known as the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works (discussed below) which later were rejected as canonical material. The DSS scrolls did however include at least portions of all of the books of the Hebrew Canon, with the one exception of the Book of Esther.

Another, later contender for canonization was the Alexandrian canon, which offered a larger canon than the Hebrew Canonical complement. Better known as the Septuagint, or Lxx, of all the translations from the Hebrew canon or Tanakh, it became the most well-known and experienced the widest use from about mid- Third Century, B.C. up to development of the Byzantine Greek (c. 600 A.D.). The Lxx is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation from the Hebrew, being made for use of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt. Once completed, the Lxx translation became the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean basin. Through linguistic analysis it has been determined that the Pentateuch (i.e., first 5 books, or Torah) was translated around the beginning of the Third Century, B.C., with the balance of the Tanakh translated over a period of years during the Second Century, B.C.

The designation Septuagint (Latin septuaginta, meaning 70) was derived from the unconfirmed but generally accepted legend that 70 (or 72, six from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel) Hebrew-Greek speaking translators were sent to Alexandria, Egypt by Eleazar, the Chief Priest at Jerusalem. At the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 – 246 B.C.), the translators were tasked with making the translation from the Hebrew into Koine Greek.

By the Third Century, A.D. the early Christian Church had largely adopted the Greek language, and therefore used the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Canon, as its Bible. The Christians[6] used the Septuagint to identify the prophecies they believed had been fulfilled in the coming of Yeshua. But the Jews considered this a misuse of the Holy Scriptures (Hebrew Canon), and thus moved away from use of the Septuagint. The subsequent history of the Lxx therefore lies within the emerging Christian Church. At some time in the Third Century, A.D., Origen, along with a few others, attempted to check the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from among many copies. Other scholars consulted the Hebrew Canon in order to make the Septuagint more accurate. However, it was the text of the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew, that became the source for the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic and a part of the Arabic translations. To this day it remains the standard version of the Greek Orthodox Church.[7]

In addition to the books of the Hebrew Canon, the Septuagint contains additional books, known to Protestants and Jews as the Apocrypha, and to Roman Catholics as the deuterocanonical books. As previously noted, the Hebrew Canon contains three divisions: Law, Prophets (including history) and the Writings. The Septuagint is comprised of four divisions: Law, History, Poetry and Prophets, with the books of the Apocrypha placed where appropriate. This division has been retained in the Western Church in the Old Latin version, the Vulgate version, and in many other modern Bible translations. In the Protestant versions the Apocrypha are either omitted, or separately grouped, usually as an appendix. It is noteworthy that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate became the text of the first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, which was published between 1452 and 1456, A.D. While printing of the first Bible was a notable achievement, in this case it contained numerous errors due to the fact that Jerome consulted not only the Maseorite text, but exegeted the Lxx texts as well as other sources. As a result, it did not establish an authoritative text for the Latin Bible.

To complete an overview of the Tanakh’s canonization, there must be discussion of the Apocryphal works and the Pseudepigraphal works. The word Apocryphal comes from the Greek and means “hidden.” The word came to be used as a designation for those books that, while considered, did not become a part of the Hebrew Canon. The listing seen as comprising the Apocrypha most usually consists of 15 books. Many Christians and Jews consider the Apocrypha to have historical and supporting value, yet consider it as unworthy of according to it equal sanctity or authority with that of the accepted Biblical Canon. The Roman Catholic Church, from the time of the Council of Trent (1546, A.D.), received the Apocrypha as a part of its canon.

The word Pseudepigraphal means “falsely written.” It describes those works which were written under the presumed name of a well-known, ancient personage, but in fact were not authored by the purported writer. For obvious reasons, once detected, the Pseudepigraphal works did not meet the tests of canonization. However, some scholars have recognized them as containing certain value as witnesses to the perspectives of those who did write them, either historically, culturally, or theologically.

It is important to note that the Apocryphal works are never cited as a part of the Hebrew Canon by Yeshua, His Apostles, Philo, Josephus, Hillel, Shammai, or any of the First Century, A.D. Tannaim (Rabbinic Sages and teachers of the Mishnaic era). For the Rabbis to reject the Apocryphal and the Pseudepigraphal writings is perfectly understandable, even if just by virtue of their authorship occurring after close of the prophetic era. However, given that the Church by this time had reached the conclusion it had replaced Israel,[8] and thus was the “new Israel,” the Church Fathers no longer considered the Hebrew Canon as normative. The Church[9] was now free to decide upon its own canon, which history records eventually included the 15 book Apocrapha. It was not until the Protestant Reformation (1517 – 1648 A.D.) and a return to the accepted Hebrew codices, that the Hebrew Canon once again became the accepted canonical text. But even at that, the book arrangements were then ordered after the Lxx, not the Hebrew Canon. Thus, the textual content was the same, but the 24 book Hebrew Canon became a 39 book Church canon, the canonical arrangement of most English Bibles today.

The following table lists the Apocryphal books in both a Protestant and Roman Catholic naming convention:

Protestant Roman Catholic

Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.) The Book of Wisdom The Book of Wisdom

Ecclesiasticus [Ben Sira] (c. 132 B.C) Ecclesiasticus Ecclesiasticus

Tobit (c. 200 B.C.) Tobias Tobias

Judith (c. 150 B.C.) Judith Judith

1 Esdras [Ezra] (c. 150-100 B.C) 3 Esdras (or 1 Esdras) 3 Esdras (or 1 Edras)

1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.) 1 Maccabees 1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.) 2 Maccabees 2 Maccabees

Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.) Baruch (Chapts. 1-5) Baruch (Chapts. 1-5)

Letter of Jeremiah (c. 300-100 B.C.) Baruch (Chapt. 6) Baruch (Chapt. 6)

2 Esdras (c. 100 A.D.) 4 Esdras (or 2 Esdras) 4 Esdras (or 2 Esdras)

Additions to Esther (140-130 B.C.) Esther (10:4 – 16:24) Esther (10:4 - 16:24)

Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st Cent. B.C.) Daniel 3:24-90) Daniel 3:24-90

Susanna (2nd or 1st Cent. B.C.) Daniel 13 Daniel 13

Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 B.C.) Daniel 14 Daniel 14

Prayer of Manasseh (2nd Cent. B.C.) Prayer of Manasseh Prayer of Manasseh

Canonicity of the Apostolic Scriptures

Not unlike the Scriptures, the Apostolic Scriptures first existed in oral form, later being put to writing beginning about 60 A.D. (possibly as early as 48 A.D.). What is important to understand is that essentially the criteria for canonization of the Scriptures, that is, the rules set in place by God’s writing the first Scriptures given to Moses, centuries later stood as the same rules for the Apostolic Scriptures given through the Apostles. Ironically, although the main body of Christendom ultimately affirmed the canonicity of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament, so-called), it has largely conducted itself as though the Hebrew Scriptures are less than authoritative, electing instead to invoke a “pick-and-choose” mentality so as to not vary from or contradict erroneous doctrines and theologies developed post-scripturally. The Apostolic Scriptures were never conceived by their writers as being contradictory to the Tanakh, or the Hebrew Scriptures. In virtually all places the Apostolic writings affirm the authority of the Tanakh, basing their claims on Moses and the Prophets as their source of authenticity, and frequently quoting same throughout. In the many times Yeshua refers to the “Scriptures (see, e.g., Mat. 21:42, 22:29, 26:54,56; and Mark 12:24),” it is clear that His references were to a recognized canon, comprised of the same books we know today as the Tanakh, or Hebrew Scriptures. Yeshua most often quoted from the Book of Deuteronomy.

The leadership of the Church in the 3rd and 4th Century A.D., after completing its separation from the 1st Century followers of Yeshua, recognized that abandonment of the Hebrew Canon would result in destruction of its foundational framework, and leave them with no historical backdrop for authority of an Apostolic Canon. Notable are the attempts by some such as Marcion ( c. 85? -c.160 A.D.) to limit the Apostolic Canon by recognizing only certain of the writings of some of the Apostles of Yeshua. By mid – 2nd Century A.D., Marcion had concluded his canon to the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Pauline Epistles. This was rightly judged as heretical, and Marcion’s misguided influence was quickly dismissed.

Interestingly, and again, while the Church has recognized the canonicity of the Hebrew Scriptures, from its 3rd Century, A.D. history forward it has conducted itself as though the Hebrew Canonical content is only selectively authoritative. In doing so it seems to have overlooked the extent to which the Apostolic Scriptures are supported by, and depend upon, the Hebrew Canon, when understood in their Hebraic context. Thus, the Church has unwittingly discredited the canonical authority of the Apostolic Scriptures – the very same Scriptures by which the Church has defined itself for two millennia.

The impetus for early efforts to assemble in written form the teachings and history of Yeshua and His Apostles was certainly compelled in part by the recognized need to pass the message on to the post-apostolic generations. Preservation of the accuracy of the accounts would also have been a motive. For example, we read in the opening verses of the Book of Luke (1:1-4), where Luke expresses to Theophilus (most probably a Gentile follower of Yeshua) his desire to “…set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered to us, … that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”

Moreover, history reveals to us that all but one of the Disciples of Yeshua (John) was martyred for their faith in His personage and teachings. It is not likely that they would have been willing to put their physical lives on the line for One whom they thought was delivering a message of fallacy and deception. Several extra-Biblical historical sources also reveal the veracity of the Apostolic accounts. For example, the Roman senator and historian Cornelius Tacitus (56- c.120 A.D.), from his Roman Annals[10]of 115-117 A.D., reports of the extreme persecutions and cruelty of the Christians by Nero; this from one who had no inclination of favor towards Yeshua or His teachings. As well, the Jewish historian Josephus (born Josephus ben Matthias, into a priestly family; later took on the Roman name of Flavius Josephus – after the Roman Emperor Flavius – when in 70 A.D. he marched with Titus on Jerusalem and thus rendered himself a traitor in the eyes of the Jews), recounts in his Antiquities of the Jews, Eighteenth Book,[11] that Yeshua [Jesus] was condemned to death by Pilate at the insistence of the then Jewish leadership; that He arose on the third day as the Prophets had foretold; and that the followers of Yeshua, called Christians, still existed at the time of his writing. Driven by the growing diaspora, in size and geographic dispersion, the need for a written history of the teachings of Yeshua and deeds of His Apostles became evident. By the time of the Apostolic writings, and particularly the epistles of Paul, the followers of Yeshua, known as the “Way,” had become separated out as a sect different from the mainstream of Judaism. Accordingly, they were no longer under the protective banner of the Jews, being free to openly worship the God of Israel, collect funds, and be exempt from required worship of the Roman Emperor. Thus, under the troubling circumstance of the time, the followers of the Way needed to be absolutely firm in their acceptance of the teachings of Yeshua and the writings of the Apostles, and that those writings were indeed inspired of God and must be preserved. Finally, at the time of the Apostolic writings there existed errant teachings from several sources, most notably that of Gnosticism. This entailed challenges to Yeshua’s incarnation, among other things, and was a constant threat operating to counter the writings of the Apostles. Considerable of the Apostolic writings, particularly those of Paul and John, were directed towards combating the fallacies of the Gnostic infiltration into the early community of believers of the Way. Compounding this was the prevailing teaching of the First Century Sages, being that the righteousness as expounded by God’s Written Word was only appurtenant to those of Israel; and Israel in their minds was a matter of ethnic (Jewish) status. Paul’s letter to the Galatians in particular addressed this very issue.

The process of canonization of the Apostolic Scriptures, extending over a period of several centuries, experienced debate over certain writings more so than others, but nevertheless culminated in what became known as synods[12], or Church councils. However, it is important to understand that the acts of these councils amounted to more of an acceptance of the writings already recognized as canonical material by virtue of the same criteria applied for the Scriptures (i.e., the Hebrew Canon), rather than any new authenticity determined directly through these council’s efforts or seeming authority. Once again, it must be stressed that, as with the Hebrew Canon, the Apostolic Canon was ultimately the product of Divine oversight by the Creator God Himself.

The Church Councils primarily associated with canonization of the Apostolic writings were:

1. The Council of Laodicea (363, A.D.). This council accepted 26 books of the 27 known today as comprising the Apostolic, or New Testament Scriptures. The Book of Revelation was at this time still in debate.

2. The Council of Carthage (397 A.D.). This council, chaired by the early church father and theologian, Augustine, accepted all 27 books, including the Book of Revelation.

3. The Council of Hippo (419 A.D.). This council simply reaffirmed the work of the Council of Carthage.

During the early canonization process, there was only limited unanimity as to consent on which writings should be included in the canon. The deliberations fell into two main categories:

1. Homolegoumena – those works which were unanimously accepted by the councils as meeting the tests for canonicity. The root word logo means to say (spoken or written), and homo means same or likeness. Thus, homolegoumena means to say things that agree.

2. Antilegoumena – the disputed works were not initially accepted as canon. The prefix anti means against, and here was applied to those writings initially spoken against by the councils, or not in consensus.

The closing disputed works, with the reasons for withholding, included:

1. Philemon – The early Church Fathers argued that Philemon was simply a letter addressed to an individual concerning secular subject matter. It therefore had nothing to do with the person and work of Yeshua, the nature of the Gospel message, or edification of the Church.

2. Hebrews – This book was anonymous, and therefore could not be proved as authored by an apostle or a close association with an apostle.

3. The Epistles of John – These were anonymous, brief, of uncertain destination, and had only limited circulation within the Church.

4. 2 Peter – The author of this work appeared to have borrowed considerable material from the Epistle of Jude.

5. Jude – This work frequently quoted from what was considered Apocryphal works, particularly the Books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.

6. Revelation – This became the most disputed work of all the Apostolic writings. Even by close to 400 A.D., few understood its meanings. Its deeply apocalyptic imagery proved to be confusing to the early Church Fathers, but also was used to some extent as fertile ground for the Gnostic teachings.

In the end the above concerns were resolved, and by the last Synodic meetings the Apostolic Canon was formally accepted and considered to be closed; some 350 to 400 years after the writings themselves had been penned.

Thus, the time span between formal canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) and the Apostolic Scriptures was some 547 years, estimated (i.e., c. 150 B.C. for the Hebrew Canon and 397 A.D. for the Apostolic Canon: 150 + 397 = 547).

[1] Ibid., How We Got Our Bible, Preface, Pg. 2 [2] Pseudepigrapha – spurious writings, especially those attributed to Biblical characters or events, and particularly ascribed to prophets and kings of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanakh). [3] The followers of Yeshua’s teaching became known at the time as “The Way.” See John 14:6; Acts 24:14, 22. [4] History notes that, of all the Roman Emperors, Diocletian was the most aggressive in his persecution of the Christians. [5] Yavnah was located on the Mediterranean coast, about 12 miles south of what today is Tel Aviv. [6] At this point in history the Church had nearly severed itself from its Hebraic foundations, and was evolving into what became the forerunner of the Roman Catholic Church. [7] Background on the Septuagint taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia, Vol. IX, Pg. 63, © 1977. [8] See Chapter 9, under the sub-header of Replacement Theology, for an explanation of this errant thinking. [9] This is the evolving post-Second Century, A.D. Church, the fore-runner to the Roman Catholic Church of today, and the brake-off of the First Century body of believers who were followers of Yeshua, and known as the “Way.” [10] See Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, by Gary R. Habermas, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, Pgs. 87-88. [11] See Josephus, The Complete Works, translation by William Whiston, A.M., Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998, Appendix, Dissertation 1, Pg. 978, ISBN 07852-5049-2. [12] Synod – an ecclesiastical council or assembly, tasked with specific objectives perceived by man, but in the case of canonical pursuits arguably guided by the Holy Spirit.